And I'm not sure what an experimental protocol would look like when we relied on being directed by reviewers & learning how it worked as we went along. I'm certainly not asserting that this reflexive ethnographic kind of approach is the only or most convincing one
I'm not sure it is because I don't think it is possible for anyone to have the knowledge needed to test knowledge production in all fields all at once. Metastudies often bring specific studies together and analyse them together.
-
-
Possibly, we could have put out a secret call and formed a huge team including people from every discipline and co-ordinated a project which addressed knowledge production & peer review in all of them all at once. But I don't think it is a problem not to do that.
-
Perhaps you can think of an area of weakness in peer review in physics? If people tested it, would it a reasonable criticism to complain they didn't also address postmodernism in gender studies, replication in social sciences, pressure from corporations in medical science?
-
I think if there were an expectation that people cannot investigate problems in their own field without knowing about & also addressing problems in every other field at the same time, it would make it nearly impossible to ever address any problems.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.